Maybe the organisation expects a slow start, but it’s hard to imagine a launch slate less compelling than what it’s cooked up. The games are fine – except they’re virtually all available on the PlayStation 4 anyway. The free copy of Destiny 2 that the search engine firm’s promised with Founders Edition pre-orders would be fine if a free-to-play version wasn’t already planned for consoles, although it admittedly does come with every piece of DLC so far – every cloud and all that, if you’ll excuse the pun.

But how many people are out there, champing at the bit to play Bungie’s shared world shooter, but unwilling to purchase a console? Who is this actually aimed at in the near-term? Google doesn’t seem to know itself: there’s a subscription fee for the “best” experience, but you still have to buy individual games on top. Amusingly, it’s advertising the lower-tier Stadia Base – which caps out at 1080p – as a “free” experience, but all of the software is still sold separately.

The bottom line is that Sony will sleep well tonight. PlayStation Now, with its 700 or so included titles, is already a much more compelling option – and it’s a supplementary one, merely giving consumers an additional choice. Google’s technology may be superior, and it may be laying the foundations for a battle that’s yet to really begin – but Stadia, as it stands right now, sounds like little more than a wet fart from a company that loves nothing more than seeing what sh*t sticks.

Are you as underwhelmed by Google Stadia's launch slate as we are? Do you think Sony should be worried about its new competitor? Lag like you mean it in the comments section below.

It was never going to be a serious contender. Google is just bored and poking into different markets.

Unsure about other countries, but in the U.S., which is probably the biggest gaming market in the world, the infrastructure just isn't there for mass adoption of game streaming. It's fine for Sony and Microsoft as a side thing, but as the main thrust of the device? Nah.

With some changes, they could possibly make headway into Japan, though. Who knows?

If Stadia does offer any compelling exclusive games, I'll just play them in 1080p with the free version and a DualShock 4 (or eventual 5). I don't see much of a reason to subscribe to play prettier versions of games I played years ago in some cases. I think xCloud coupled with Gamepass has the capacity to be something cool, but Stadia simply doesn't have the game selection I would be looking for.

I have nothing against Stadia, it could be cool and interesting but I’m not excited about it at all. And if it weren’t for these articles, I kind of forget about it honestly. I think I’ll be a console guy for a good long while.

Eh I preordered it. It's cheap enough and I was planning on getting another Chromecast Ultra anyways so the extra $60 ain't that bad. I'm not expecting a revolution, but since the beta worked very well for me may as well give it a shot. If it works as advertised cool, if not ah well happy to be a Guinea pig

This thing is dead in the water, I have to pay $10 a month for 4k gaming and have to buy the games $60 separately?? So when google shut it down years later all my games is gone? Also all of their games is 3rd party that can be played on ps4, sigh.

Also better hope there's no one is watching youtube, netflix or downloading large file in your home wifi when you're gaming since your gaming stream will become unplayable.

I don't think the demographics for "people that like AAA gaming, okay with spending $60 for a games, have expensive fast internet in their home, but didn't want to buy console/play on pc" exist.

As we enter a new console generation, it could easily capture the younger audience who doesn’t have the cash to shell out 400$ for a console or 1000$ for a PC but still wants to play the new COD or Fortnite or whatever with their friends.

Plus this is the same company that had its whole infrastructure grind to a halt this last week youtube Snapchat the lot how they expect this to work with crappy internet speeds we have and data caps is beyond me

As far as I can see Stadia is for affluent people who have super fast broadband but have never played a videogame but would like to try Assassins Creed. To me it doesn’t seem particularly cheap, reliable, needs you to be quite tech savvy, and offers nothing in the way of desirable 1st party offerings like Mario, Halo, or Uncharted.

And be honest, if you like video games chances are you’re buying a system because you want to play those particular games instead of the slightly wonky 3rd party stuff.

With the subscription fee and having to buy games on top of it, the cost of it seems way too high to appeal to the mass market. Plus it's streaming, so any games you've bought on it will disappear forever whenever Google inevitably scraps this project.

I don't get it, so I pay £119 to be able to buy games but then I have to pay a subscription to play those games that I buy, and hope my internet doesn't go down. Oh and the games are either those I already own or didn't want to buy in the first place. Yeah I'll just stick with a console and the next gen will be 4K 60fps natively anyway

@ZeD I guess if you're asking that you're already left behind.@ShogunRok "As a console player in 2019 I just don't see the appeal of Stadia at all." Red Dead Redepemtion 1 capture this sentiment exactly when I think Mardsen comments about one of the first iterations of a car in the game. If you're used to riding a horse your whole life seeing a car makes absolutely no sense, and that while is understandable should not be a reason to flatly discount the new thing.

@carlos82 You already buy a console, pay a subscription to play games onlines and hope their servers don't go down already. This just takes the console out of the equation which was front and center of the presentation and even announced months ago. I never knew fake outrage could be so real.

@get2sammyb I think you are totally right with this. Im expecting a very strong show from Microsoft. They know with Sony out of the picture this year, they have an unchallenged opportunity to position themselves for next gen.

@3MonthBeef what?! I remember the backlash of the xbox one always being online.
What happens if I have no Internet access, I cannot access my games.
Or what happens if the servers go down, like the other day?
I understand how this is pushing the idea of playing anywhere forward but the worlds Internet infrastructure is not ready.
It is not for everyone.

@ZeD to be fair MS were ahead of the curve somewhat with their ideas for the XB1. While Sony’s PS4 ended up being a real crowd pleaser I think it has just delayed the inevitable for a few years really.

@kyleforrester87 that is a fair point and like with everything (gaas, f2p etc) we as gamers usually get use to it and end up liking it.
We have XCloud around the corner which could offer new games like Stadia and Sony have already spoke about ramping up their PSNow service over the coming year.
Atm the quality is what is holding back Now but with the new partnership with Azure, it could change.
Witb PSNow being the only streaming service I have used I am just sceptical about the 4K 60fps they are promising on Stadia. It may be amazing and I may be wrong.
I do like the idea of being able to picm up and play a game where ever I am. Maybe this is the future we are heading too?

@Stragen8 chuck a few f2p games on there like Fortnite and it will be a success overnight 😁

@ZeD yeah, as I mentioned on another topic which I’ve copied below instead of typing out again in other words, but whatever your current preferences are it’s an interesting concept to take a step back from and look at.

—

Really, I don’t think Stadia is going to be a success at all and I’m happy to go on record with that one!

That said, please humour me and put all your current thoughts aside. Imagine a scenario whereby you have one controller that can connect seamlessly to any screen in or outside your home, whether it be phone, tablet, nano-projector, tv and you’re able to instantly launch any number of thousands of games you can think of running from consoles more powerful than anything you could imagine in your living room, and enjoy playing those games flawlessly in super high definition right where you left off, with zero communication issues.

There are so many technical barriers to overcome before it gets to that level but I believe it can get to that point. Services like 5G and beyond are increasing, giving us all more bandwidth. Perhaps we’ll each have 2 or 3 back up connections as standard to cover us if one goes down in the future. Elon Musk is about to start sending up hundreds of satellites to provide worldwide coverage. Once it does get to that level you’ll have a whole generation of new gamers without the physical hang ups that a lot of us, myself included, have and gaming in that way will be the new normal.

@ZeD I dunno, I do think in 10 years we’ll be at a point where streaming could be at equal shares with physical and digital download, but it’s hard to see connections being as solid as I’ve suggested for what, 30-50 years?

The thing is it’s not as if they can co-exist forever, as it’ll reach a point when it’s just not cost effective to manufacture hardware for the living room that can compete with what a centralised console could achieve, especially as the need for such hardware will dwindle as more and more people switch over to streaming. At that point the best games just stop getting released for the home consoles. Factor in all those consoles they currently sell at a loss, perhaps they can roll that into much better value subscriptions for one.

@ZeD Yes....because the world will be exactly as it is now in the years to come. Its a start man.

I don't get this attitude that a service is suppose to change the over world literally the day its announced.

Do you guys expect companies to just wait until 2030 and say "okay now's the time!" flip a switch and instantly everyone's adopting it? That's some fantasy level narcotics you got going on.

We're the in infrastructure phase to a game streaming world. Does that mean consoles are forever dead? Maybe, maybe not, but this is the second, maybe third birth of game streaming and the evidence for it is at least a decade old, OnLive being one, if not THE pioneer despite its fate due to horrific management.

@ZeD (Yes it is a good start, that's all I'm saying) I think people just sometimes want to be edgy for badge of honor points or something. "I'm a true console gamer. Never streaming!" PCMaster!" And yet ironically these are the very same people that call for "ending console wars," like ....what!?

Stadia's initial launch monthly subscription price seems cheap. But my thinking is am I willing to pay a monthly subscription for stadia which drops in quality as I'm playing a game (depending on stream and non-interruptions)? Or do I prefer a non-streaming next-gen console which guarantees full fat graphics running at the set resolution the developers want it at? I'm for the latter. Solid consoles with games that I own all the way. Also as an early adopter of android games I've seen each update not support or totally remove my library of games. Netflix also decreases in quality altho I'm paying full 4k subscription with superfast broadband. Nope I won't be suckered again by always online streaming pap, I want to own the games I buy and stick them into the console whenever I want. For the gamers!

@MoorePs4 I'm trying to be level headed about all of this but that is about how I felt too while watching. : D

To be clear no game interests me, but I'm also not millions of people so there's an offering in there somewhere.

I often hear people uninstalling huge games only to reinstall it later, for example Destiny 2. I hate installing any large game file, I hate installing period to do it twice or more over just seems idiotic to me. If I don't have to install then I can quit and return whenever I want and not have to "make room" on my device.

So for me the strategy would be for huge games play it on Stadia for anything else: console.

As someone with a 55" 4k HDR TV, the Stadia Pro package doesn't seem to bad - as an 'alternative' to MS's Game Pass. A monthly subscription charge to play 'new games' with just a controller and Chromecast USB dongle isn't too bad - I have the required the Internet connection for 4k HDR at 60fps too.

It will depend on the games and the latency from my perspective but if they can end up having all the AAA games at launch with just a 'small' monthly subscription, all playable at 4k HDR 60fps with the graphical settings set at high as a minimum, low latency too, it has potential.

Of course we still have to see what MS and Sony have to offer going forward but Stadia doesn't seem to bad. If you want a 'pay as you go' 1080p service, you can go with the Base and buy the games you want to play or have the 'pro' for a monthly subscription and get access to 4k HDR games.

Sony may not feel worried with PSNow and MS with Game Pass but we will have to see how both of these evolve in the future and how Stadia grows too. The base version of Stadia is a bit like buying a discless XB1/PS4 and having to buy your games digitally - except that Stadia doesn't seem to have an 'online' subscription (like Gold/PS+). The big thing Stadia has going for it right now is that you only need a Stadia controller (and a Chromecast if you want to use you TV) and can play anywhere at up to 4k HDR 60fps for just $9.99 a month. How much will it cost to buy a new console and then still have to pay to play games online - more if you want services like Game Pass and PSNow. Its that 'cheap' (comparatively) entry point and not having to pay to play online. For the cost of 'Netflix' every month, you have access to games anywhere, not just fixed to your TV like PS4 or XB1 is, not just games that can run well enough on the hardware of your 'mobile' device but the latest games too.

I am not saying Stadia will have Sony or MS worried but it may make them a little concerned. They may well have 'plans' for their future with their new consoles to beat Stadia but with the cost of PS5, PS+ and PSNow - assuming Sony keep charging for online access and their own subscription streaming game service (same as MS too), you have to say Stadia does look enticing for gamers...

I'm keeping an eye on it. I basically got a switch to game handheld so that I don't take up the TV all the time!! The idea of getting to play something like ac odessey on my phone/iPad then jumping into the same point on the TV is interesting. I'm waiting on what streaming options are on the ps5 though, I'm betting Sony steps up its play anywhere/remote play options

The article is dealing with the NOW, it's not saying streaming will never happen and some of you are going on and on about how it's inevitable in the FUTURE but it wouldn't do well NOW. So really what's the argument here, you're basically repeating what the article is saying - as at now and the next few or more years, Stadia just doesn't look appealing period.

@TheArt Because the article is written from a perspective of being unrealistic. Anyone expecting some glorious culture change NOW is a buffoon period (and people wonder why gamers aren't taken seriously).

@3MonthBeef Nah it doesn't read like that. Yea I was talking crap about downloading full games before the PS4 launched and even when I had about 5 digital games on my 360 already, it still wasn't appealing to me. It's 2019 now and I have about 10+ digital games on my PS4 but...the PS4 would've been a total disaster if it launched without a disc drive. Options is always better which Stadia seems to think it's not, that's the whole point here.

Google is not going for the traditional video game player. Google is doing a blue ocean strategy like Nintendo did with the Wii to expand the number of people who play games. I think it will do very well with people who usually don’t play games.

@Landstalker Does it? I mean there are a lot of fanboys who can't stand the though of their console losing market to another competitor. Of course they would attack Stadia no matter what. Disabling the comments was a wise decision.

@3MonthBeef I rarely if ever play online so the subscription or their servers going down is irrelevant as I can happily continue to play my library even without an internet connection. It's not fake outrage, just that this has no appeal whatsoever and absolutely no benefits at all over the console I currently own and even the cost of buying a PS5 and still being able to play my vast library of games on that too. No matter how you look at it, paying a subscription to access products you have already paid for is ridiculous

Everyone is poo pooing the Stadia a bit and I get it, the pricing of the games and digital collection at the same price as other consoles isn't great. However, am I not right in thinking that this is essentially offering a 4k gaming device for £120?

When PS5 comes out, you are easily looking at £400 + plus PS Plus and Games to come out. So if you wanted to play, I don't know, Fifa 20 or whatever, you are looking at least £450 investment... or possibly a £160 investment without a whopping great box under your tv.

Not saying this is a console killer, I don't think it will appeal to frequenters of this site and they need all publishers onboard etc. but what I am seeing so far isn't that bad.

@Rudy_Manchego you'd need a £10 sub to access 4K though, as well as £60 for FIFA etc. so in the long term it could potentially add up to more than buying a home console and just one or two games.

The real appeal long term though is that next year they'll be offering 'Stadia Base', which appears to be completely free (bar the games). It won't be 4K, but apparently does go to 1080p.

So come Autumn 2020, we could well have a situation where the choices to play the "best" version of FIFA 2021 (for example) are to spend x amount on a PS5 + the game, or just buy the game and stream through Stadia on whatever screen you like.

The next 2 years or so is gonna be fascinating to see how it all unfolds imo.

@Rudy_Manchego as @roe says it's virtually £10 a month to continue to play those games at the highest quality forever, plus the £120 to start and it'd only be 2 or 3 years before it's already cost you as much as a PS5 would. However at that point you're still going to be paying that monthly fee, if the games were included it's a different story but even then the majority of us here already likely have a huge library of PS4 games worth £100's that we can move over.

Streaming likely will become dominant at some point but I think they have got their business model wrong for now and that initial lineup is largely underwhelming. Even those you mentioned, I have many friends who just play GTA or FIFA but once again already have the console so have little incentive even for the base version, more so when you think that all their friends they play online with would also have to move. As I said a Gamepass style subscription where all the games are included in the cost of the streaming would make much more sense, as is I'm not entirely sure who this is aimed at

@carlos82 Yes, but from 2020 Google are stating that the base version at 1080p is like £60 with no subscription?

If you aren't tied to a console, i.e. you aren't worried about backlog or brand loyatly or player bases and you occasionally game, personally I think this might be appealing. I mean whenever the next Fifa or COD game comes out that is purely next gen, those casual gamers have a choice - invest in a PS5/XBOXSixtyNine (or whatever) or just pay to stream.

I'm not saying this will have a market or not, I don't know at the moment. Could completely crash and burn and I don't think that next year it will impact PS5 launch figures. I just think that the Google Stadia isn't aimed at gamers that frequent sites like this.

I also think the gaming community is too quick to leap on new ideas and rubbish them before seeing the service offering (and I'm one of them). Let's not forget, the PS1 was going to fail, the Xbox was going to fail, no one was going to pay any money for PS Plus subs, no one was going to buy PS Now, the Switch had no market etc.

This is a new idea which might go fluff up or might go down well. I'm not sure Google are rolling this out very well and I probably won't be an early adopter but at the same time, I think they have something here. Providing you, it actually works OK as well.

@Rudy_Manchego yeah after I wrote that I was kind of thinking that basically it's not really aimed at us and there is whole generation of kids who won't be tied to a console. I'm not against the idea of such a thing and have championed the likes of Gamepass, further down the line it will probably be the way to go but in the here and now there are far too many questions for me, not least that most of the games I play simply won't be on it.

I'll be curious to see how Microsoft leverage Gamepass for a similar idea or when PS Now catches up from the technology side. For now and the foreseeable future, I personally have very little incentive to even have a go

With internet speeds being so restricted in the west, generally, I think this will struggle to get a foothold. We've seen a few 'console killers' come and go and have left barely a dent in the gaming landscape. In the end, it comes down to a console having games to play and so Sony, Nintendo and MS are safe for now. Another question though is about couch co-op - would that even be possible on the Stadia or would it be one controller and subscription per player?

I can't believe that anyone from Google wouldn't read the below the lines comments on pretty much every gaming website and think, "actually, why bother wasting millions of pounds on this when no one really seems to want it"! Why press ahead with something that sound unutterably rubbish?

I'm not one into streaming, so this is a definite 'no go' for me...just like if Sony, Microsoft or even Nintendo do this in the near future, I'll still be out...you don't own the games, you're basically paying full price to rent them, and when servers are off, you just spent money for something you can't play anymore. I'm the one that would rather have the actual discs sitting in my home, to where 20 years down the line, I can still play them...the same goes for my movies and music too...I tunes songs have codes, if the artist takes the songs away, even if they are downloaded onto your computer, you still won't be able to play or even burn them...the same goes for the movies, as I actually purchased 2 in the past on Apple and both were taken away. Call me old fashioned, but if I don't own it physically, I don't want it!

This is also many remarks that many people would make, and something that Google is doing, isn't going to go well with the older market of gamers and consumers...it would be something good for people living in college dorms or constantly on the move with jobs, but with the fact that the internet and streaming is not where it should be for this (it seriously would need to be great and powerful, which it's no where close to this yet), it's basically a 'test' for google and consumers.

@carlos82 I agree completely - right now, no service be it Gamepass or PS Now caters for what I want. The titles I like aren't going on streaming services, or at least quickly anyway. I have dabbled with Gamepass and played some games but don't see it to me as an essential service. However, I expect there is a big market out there for it and that we, as those with a passion for the industry, are probably the least to get into it. I wonder if we will end up like vinyl collecters in the spotify age?

I don't think this is necessarily to compete with consoles yet anyway. I see it more as an addition and a PC games service for now.

One of the launch titles is Football Manager. If they can work it so that mods can be used, that potentially means that people can play a super huge database/leagues save of FM on an as basic as you could get PC or tablet, or even just their TV. That would be massive and that's just one title.

I do wonder if Google will introduce an ad-based model where you get 30 sec ad before the game launches. I can see that working very well for advertisers and gamers. Advertisers get many more views because of the huge gaming market and gamers get to truly play for free. The advertisers would essentially replace the $9.99 subscription and if you want to pay for the game you don't get the ad.

Even though the idea of more competition in this video game industry is good, it helps to give more variety of games; Here Google really moved forward so abruptly and thinking that streaming games are still feasible for everyone; But really many people (myself included) do not have faith for not having the games at our disposal "" when "" we want and without having to connect to the Internet.And if we add that the service will not be available in many parts of the world (Mexico and Latin America we will have to wait longer ...) and that their service includes a Premium mode where you have to pay as a membership so they will surely be "annoying" to the free users for buying the premium membership ..., I see it difficult for Google to have a great success with Stadia ..., we will have to see.

Well question is do you buy this later this year or put the premium version money towards a shiny new ps5 which plays your current games you own for free via backwards compatibility which will most likely have greater hardware than the stadia or spend the money to buy something that will be outdated by the time ps5 comes out and won't harness the power the next gen will have, at least stadia could have gone higher with the graphics and power then maybe it gives cause for concern but yet again still need a constant connection.

@3MonthBeef Long term vision? How about they commit that you will get to keep your games playable through Stadia for the next XY years, lets say 20. Otherwise money back, calculated proportionally somehow, in a transparent way so that you know what you are buying. How about a model that you buy e.g. 20hrs a month and you pay for that as a monthly subscription and if you not use them you get money back minus the minimum required to keep the servers going to keep it viable (you can also buy more time, which will never disappear and roll over to the next month). How about a small flat, monthly fee to play all games as you wish - Netflix of games this is not. This is what it should be for a start. How about bundling it with other services you are/could be already paying for e.g. YouTube. Etc.

Sony is scared of Stadia. Why else would they team up with Microsoft to improve their streaming service. 90% if the games on even PS4 pro play checkerboard 4k 30fps. PS Now is 720p. Stadia you can access with existing hardware (Chromecast Ultra) and with a decent connection they can deliver 4k hdr 60fps at way cheaper subscription price than PS Now. They already got exclusives, huge influence, infastructure and budget. Your biased article is pathetic. Just cuz you love PS and Sony you should still write with accuracy. If they wanna keep up with Stadia they are gonna have to up their game and they know that. Stadia is huge. It gonma change the whole gaming industry. You watch and tell me I was wrong in 12 months time.